The "drop-in" replacement for the 2200 is the r2400. I have one after a
brief ownership of an r800 (the A4 version of the one you are
considering). All I can say is if you can possible spring for the extra
cost, the2400 is the way to go.

Prints are "different" but the 2400 is unmatched for speed and of course
the K3 inks are the real lure. If you sell your pictures and intend to
print your own, you absolutely need pigment inks.

I have an R1800.
The positives are no blockages or head cleanings (manual head cleanings)
required after 1 year of varied (sometimes heavy - sometimes idle for
many weeks) use.
Output is excellent on matte papers - gamut is greater than the 2200 -
the prints look better.  The gloss optimiser does work very effectively
on semi-gloss papers - so zero gloss differential / no bronzing, reduced
effect of the ink being "layered" inherent with pigment printers.  I
can't say I like the full gloss - as although bronzing/gloss
differential aren't a factor, the prints aren't as glossy as either good
dye ink prints or wet process prints, and the "chalkiness" of pigment
inks becomes apparent on this media type.
For B&W, the R1800 does a very good job - with canned profiles I get a
very slight colour cast - almost imperceptible but there if you look hard.
Depending on your needs, there are a couple of other options to look at.
 The Epson R2400 offers an inkset with 3 black inks for neutral
monochrome printing.  As well as the improving tonality by three black
densities, the inks themselves are "neutral", so colour cast issues are
not a problem.  (previous pigment "black" was not blended - just plain
carbon black which is yellowish - meaning that other colour inks are
applied in monochrome printing by necessity in attempt to make the greys
neutral - only partly successful, as the yellowish tone of the "plain"
carbon black ink varies with density) The downsides to the R2400 are
that more ink is used (it takes more "light" colours to achieve a given
tone than smaller drops of "full strength" ink) and a cartridge change
is required when switching between matte and gloss media - there is a
gloss/photo black and a matte black, and switching these cartridges will
use/waste ink for flushing/priming.  Upside - apart from B&W is that the
light shade inks (cyan and magenta as well as the greys) increase gamut
beyond the R1800 - and way ahead of the 2100/2200.  The printer is also
priced considerably higher than the R1800, despite sharing nearly all
components (remove the outer case, and they are nearly identical).
HP are in the process of releasing an a3+ pigment printer.  This has
separate ink reservoirs and replaceable heads, 8 colour inkset, longer
(double) display permanence rating (results from Willhelm) than than the
R2400, "self maintaining" heads, and closed-loop calibration.  Initial
reports are that results including monochrome are on a par with the
R2400 (although it has "only" two - not three black shades).  Price is
similar to the R2400.  Ink cartridges are about double the capacity of
the 2400, and waste for auto cleaning cycles should be much less. (the
printer performs head-cleaning if it detects blockages occurring and can
apparently switch nozzles on the fly, but all epson printers perform
head maintenance cleaning automatically every few days - whether needed
or not).  It sounds fantastic so far.  The catches with this might be
that despite larger capacity cartridges and reduced waste, the ink
cartridges are probably going to be expensive, and the cost for head
replacements and expectation for how often this will be needed is
unknown.  I'm sure HP marketing dept have the real figures, and will
price consumables (including heads) accordingly so that nobody gets a
free lunch.
Canon are also releasing a 10 colour A3+ pigment printer "Pixma
Pro9500".  I have not seen any real comment on this at all.  The only
review of Canon's pigment printers I've seen has been of the larger 17"
12 colour printer, where output didn't look great in comparison to
Epson's R4800, but trusting one review may be misleading.
My suggestion would be that if monochrome is not a main criteria, the
the R1800 is available now and has been established for over a year, and
has some advantages over any alternatives on gloss and semi-gloss media.
If monochrome is important, then the R2400 has "state of the art" output
quality, but it would niggle me to buy one now when it appears that the
new HP printer solves some significant problems (matte/gloss cartridge
change - ink waste), yet has many unknowns - that will remain unknown
until it has been used in the market for some time.

I have one and I like it. Biggest complaint is with heavy watercolor
paper (300gsm Moab Entrada) that has to be fed through a separate slot
and requires holding your hand with gentle pressure for about 30 seconds
for a clean feed. Heavy stock can only be used in 8x10 and up, specific
sizes so no easy way to make test prints. The watercolor paper prints
are brighter colors, a whole different gamut than gloss or semigloss
Epson, and I have standard profiles so I don't know why it's so
different, I just accept that. I just did a print today that came out
really bizzare:
http://www.edgehill.net/temp/_DSC1776.JPG
note the print on top is watercolor, the blurry yellow edge that fades
to green went into oddly banded striations compared to the smooth
transition on the bottom print with semigloss epson paper.

But I haven't seen this before and no banding problems, usually big
broad transitions come out great.

There is no way to print with the black cartridge only. So printing
emails will have blue hyperlinks.

Borderless prints are also restricted to specific sizes, you can't cut
13x19 in half and still print borderless.

Borderless 13x19 are just great. I love it!

I got mine two weeks ago Chris, the colors rather surprised me
how good  they are-compared to my Epson 1280 far superior. I mainly
bought this printer to do in house prints from digital files, as I have
a full color enabled darkroom digital represents a small but growingly
important portion of my business. I rather got tired of traveling miles
for output files that did not exceed or even meet expectations.

Out of the box I was easily able by reading instructions to match prints
to me onscreen images. So I am happy.

I have an Epson 1280 and an 1800. Which gives "better" color is a subjective
judgment, but I tend to use the 1800 more, possibly just because it is
faster? I would have no reservations about recommending the 1800 for color
photo printing. The gloss optimizer is odd if you are coming from dye based
printers but bronzing and all that seems to be a non starter. The Epson
canned profiles are pretty accurate. My limited attempts at B&W printing
have not been spectacular (it could be my photos) but I do not think single
black cartridge printers can compete with printers like the 2400 in the
hands of someone dedicated to B&W printing. Alas the 1800 is an Epson and
one has to be vigilant about trying to minimize clogs and checking for clogs
prior to every printing session. As an added benefit the 1800 supposedly
prints on CDs but I doubt I will ever actually use that function or have a
clue as to why I would want to.